TAYLOR, Michael Angelo (1757-1834), of Cantley Hall, nr. Doncaster, Yorks. and Whitehall Yard, Mdx.

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1820-1832, ed. D.R. Fisher, 2009
Available from Cambridge University Press



1784 - 1790
22 Dec. 1790 - Feb. 1791
25 Feb. 1791 - 1796
1796 - 7 Mar. 1800
17 Mar. 1800 - 1802
1806 - 1807
1807 - 1812
1812 - 1818
1818 - 1831
1832 - 16 July 1834

Family and Education

bap. 13 July 1757,1 o.s. of Sir Robert Taylor, architect, of Spring Gardens, Mdx. and his w. Elizabeth (d. 27 Dec. 1803). educ. Westminster 1766; Corpus, Oxf. 21 Oct. 1774, aged 17; I. Temple 1769; L. Inn 1770, called 1774. m. 7 Aug. 1789, Frances Anne, da. and h. of Rev. Sir Henry Vane, 1st bt., of Long Newton, co. Dur., s.p. suc. fa. 1788. d. 16 July 1834.

Offices Held

Recorder, Poole 1784-d.; member of council, duchy of Cornw. 1808; PC 23 Feb. 1831.

Maj. commdt. Skirack vols. 1804.


A diminutive, pompous and well-meaning barrister committed to reforming the court of chancery, Taylor had abandoned Pittite Toryism shortly after entering Parliament in 1784 and thereafter he consistently advocated the removal of religious disabilities, the abolition of sinecures, parliamentary and criminal law reform and lower taxes. Recalled by John Hobhouse* as ‘an incredible coxcomb, but good-natured and not altogether without capacity’, his boast in 1827 that he had supported the Whigs, who made his Whitehall house their rendezvous, ‘for eight and thirty years at an expense of above £30,000’ was substantially correct. He also routinely marshalled snippets gleaned at his dinner table and elsewhere into informative letters to Lords Darlington and Grey and the Whig hierarchy.2 They, according to the Tory Lord Lowther*, the target of misinformation circulated by Taylor at Doncaster races in 1825, used him as ‘a sort of common crier or parrot that will repeat and blazon about anything that is told him’.3

Taylor’s second return for Durham in 1818 on his wife’s interest had not been contested, but a family dispute and futile appeal to chancery that year by Mrs. Taylor, who opposed the marriage of her niece and joint custodian of the Vane interest, Lady Frances Vane Tempest, to Lord Castlereagh’s* half-brother and heir, Lord Charles William Stewart†, prompted a challenge to him at the general election of 1820 by Stewart’s friend and prospective brother-in-law Sir Henry Hardinge. The Tory Richard Wharton’s† decision to contest the county restored Lambton-Tempest control in Durham without a contest and for the next decade Taylor represented the city with Hardinge as the nominee of the county Member, John Lambton, notwithstanding the residual Vane interest he commanded.4 On the hustings at the 1820 city and county elections he defended Lambton and denounced the repressive legislation enforced by Lord Liverpool’s administration after Peterloo, although his parliamentary speeches had condoned restrictions on public meetings.5

A steady but unaffiliated supporter of the Whig opposition led by Tierney in the 1818 Parliament, Taylor divided with them on most major issues in that of 1820, voting also occasionally with his friend and frequent guest Thomas Creevey and the ‘Mountain’ for economy, retrenchment and reduced taxation and consistently for criminal law reform, against military flogging and to end West Indian slavery. A radical publication of 1825 noted correctly that he ‘attended frequently and voted with opposition; spoke often’.6 However, except on matters affecting the courts and the London area, his views were rarely heeded. Drawing on his experience as a prison visitor and victim of a personal assault and robbery in July 1820, he supported the call for an improved police system, 17 Apr. 1821; but he voiced his reservations about the merits of the metropolitan force established by Peel, 15 June 1830.7 He supported the 1820-1 parliamentary and extra-parliamentary campaigns on behalf of Queen Caroline, but did not speak on the subject after his questions on the Milan commission were ridiculed on both sides of the House, 24 June 1820.8 Two days later he received ten days’ leave on private business. He voted, 28 Feb. 1821, and paired, 1 Mar. 1825, for Catholic relief, but he stated in the House, 28 Mar., and to Darlington afterwards, that as an opponent of the attendant franchise bill, he could not give further support to the 1825 measure.9 He stewarded at the London Tavern, 3 Apr. 1821, and divided for parliamentary reform, 9, 10 May 1821, 25 Apr. 1822 (as a pair), 2 June 1823, 27 Apr. 1826, having missed the division on Lambton’s proposals through dining with him, 18 Apr. 1821.10 He joined its presenter Thomas Coke I in denouncing William Cobbett’s† radical Norfolk petition as the work of an anti-reformer, a ‘mass of absurdities ... false statements ... [and] a farrago of inconclusive reasoning’, 24 Apr. 1823.

Undeterred by the rejection of his annual schemes to reduce chancery delays, he resumed his campaign directly the queen’s case was resolved by proposing a resolution of intent, committing the House to address the issue early in 1822, which ministers narrowly defeated (by 56-52), 30 May 1821. He reviewed his attempts since 1808 to reform chancery, highlighted Sir Samuel Romilly’s† role in securing inquiry in 1811 and discussed the shortcomings of the court without criticizing its personnel or lord chancellor Eldon.11 His next attempt, which failed by 51-108, 26 June 1822, targeted the vice-chancellor’s court and was backed by the chancery barrister John Williams, who, by making the attack a personal one on Eldon, caused ministers to initiate an inquiry in the Lords. Taylor supported Williams in a major speech, 28 Apr., was a minority teller for adjourning his motion, 4 June 1823, and divided for it the next day.12 He denounced the terms of the 1824 commission (established in his absence and packed with government supporters), 31 May, and supported further inquiry, 7 June 1825. When the attorney-general Sir Charles Wetherell moved to effect the commission’s recommendations, 18 May 1826, Taylor conceded that their report was not without merit, blamed Eldon for failing to recommend setting up a separate court for bankruptcy proceedings and refuted suggestions that chancery arrears were illusory. He also suggested appointing a deputy Speaker for the Lords to give the lord chancellor more time to attend to the business of his court, an idea subsequently taken up by Brougham and included in the 1830 Act. On other judicial matters, he recommended giving a criminal jurisdiction to the court of pleas, 3 July 1821,13 and, harrying the lord advocate, he backed the Whig Thomas Kennedy’s proposals for the Scottish court of session and the Scottish juries bill, 12, 14, 16 Feb. 1821, 26 Apr., 28 June 1822.14 He objected to the compensation payments proposed for former Irish exchequer court officers, 21 Mar. 1821,15 and backed Lord Cawdor’s abortive scheme for abolishing the Welsh courts of great sessions and judicature, 23 May 1822. He called for a full investigation into the lord advocate’s conduct in the Borthwick case, observing that it ‘had little to do with Scottish law’, 3 June, and urged prompt inquiry into allegations against the Irish chief baron O’Grady, 13 June 1823. He defended the principle of the 1824 county courts bill and had the county clerk of Durham, previously overlooked as a bishop’s appointee, added to the list of court officers to be compensated, 26 Mar. 1824.

Taylor’s examination of the printer Weaver helped to confirm the involvement of Lord Londonderry (as Castlereagh had become) in John Bull’s libel on Henry Grey Bennet*, 9 May, and he contributed to the clamour for printing the evidence, 10, 11 May 1821.16 He was for investigating the Constitutional Association’s libel action against the proprietor of the Examiner, 28 May 1823, but made it clear that he would have no truck with Hume and the radicals’ defence of Deist publications, 3 June 1824. As the president of the India board Charles Williams Wynn had anticipated,17 he voted in the opposition majority for inquiry into the prosecution of the Dublin Orange rioters, 22 Apr., and intervened repeatedly during it, 2, 23 May. 1823.18 He opposed the Irish tithes composition bill and complained that the Irish church hierarchy were grossly overpaid, 30 May 1823. Taylor’s large head and small limbs (which Gilray caricatured) were hard to disguise, and according to Creevey he was ‘smoaked instantly ... and got most infernally hustled’ when he ‘went as a Jew peddler and knife seller’ to the masquerade that July.19

Taylor’s 1821 bill to control the nuisance of steam engine smoke, which he claimed affected his London home, was hatched in the investigative committees he secured in 1819 and 1820 and shaped to promote the chimney system patented by the Warwick manufacturer Parkes, which he viewed on 11 Apr. 1820, and described in the House, 2 May 1820, 18 Apr. 1821. He overcame opposition from the mining and iron districts of Cornwall, Staffordshire and South Wales, Londonderry’s hostility and complaints by Fowell Buxton and other opponents of compulsion to carry the bill’s committal by 83-29, 7 May, and third reading, 10 May. It received royal assent, 28 May 1821, after he had added a rider exempting mine engines (1 and 2 Geo. IV, c. 41).20 The author of the 1817 London Paving and Lighting Act (57 Geo. III, c. 29), he spoke regularly on metropolitan matters, and his stage coaches bill received royal assent, 6 June 1820 (1 Geo. IV, c. 4). He presented the wharfingers’ petitions on the dangerous state of London Bridge, 1 May 1820, and called for the construction of a new one, 29 Apr. 1822.21 He brought up the report on the contentious Stoke Newington vestry bill, 27 Mar. 1821. He supported inquiry into the water supply, although he disputed its instigator William Fremantle’s account of the water companies, 6 Feb. 1821. He later backed the corporation of London’s petition criticizing the ‘bubble’ Metropolitan Waterworks Company, 11 Mar., and called for better regulation, 18 May 1825. He opposed the establishment of University College, London from a conviction that the discipline and education at Oxford were superior and that Brougham’s liberal views were bound to fail, 3 June 1825.22

As recorder, Taylor retained a keen interest in matters affecting Poole, where his standing had plummeted following repeated failures to secure concessions for or inquiry into the Newfoundland trade. As his interventions of 5 June 1820 and 23 Feb. 1821 on the timber duties presaged, he opposed relaxation of the navigation laws because it would ‘transfer the trade of England to the opposite shores’, 7, 20 May 1822.23 Alluding to the damage wrought by the American concessions on the Newfoundland trade and the need for help from all quarters, he backed both Wilmot Horton’s abortive Newfoundland laws bill, 25 Mar., and Hume’s proposal for inquiry into the fisheries, which Horton opposed, 14 May 1823. He presented and endorsed the South Shields petition against the reciprocity duties, 1 July 1823.24 Attending to constituency business, he presented and endorsed petitions for changes in the laws affecting debtors, 20 May 1822, and against the bankruptcy, 11 June 1823, hides and skins, 29 Mar., and beer retail bills, 17 May 1824.25 Deputizing for Lambton, he presented petitions from the coal owners of Sunderland against the new shipping regulations, 18 May 1824, and several against slavery, 24 Feb., 9, 20 Mar., 18 Apr. 1826.26 On the hustings at Durham at the general election in June, when he was unopposed, he reviewed his ‘sixty-nine years’ and defined a Whig as a man who would not accept office ‘unless by his intervention the people were allowed to have their due weight and influence’ in the Commons. He also accounted for his stance on Catholic relief in 1825 and advocated reform of chancery and the civil courts and the abolition of slavery.27 In October 1826 he joined the Whig and Durham hierarchy at Lambton races.28

Taylor added his voice to Horton’s in defence of the Australian Mining Company, 5 Dec. 1826. Except on the chancery question, he kept a low profile in the House while the succession to Lord Liverpool as premier was determined. He divided for Catholic relief, 6 Mar., and a 50s. pivot price for corn imports, 9 Mar., was a minority teller on the Dublin election petition, 20 Mar., and voted for information on the Barrackpoor mutiny, 22 Mar. 1827. He stressed that the protectionist petitions he presented from Sunderland’s ship owners, 21 Mar., and millers, 2 Apr., were motivated solely by distress.29 With Williams out of Parliament, he drafted a motion to remove bankruptcy jurisdiction from chancery, but withdrew it pending the announcement of favourable ministerial proposals, 27 Feb. Dissatisfied with the reforms announced by the master of the rolls Copley, ‘a tub to catch the whale’, 23 Mar., he voted in Harvey’s minority for inquiry, 5 Apr., and on 22 May revived his 27 Feb. motion, which now also served to test support for the new Canning administration and failed by 37-134. Ministerial backing for separation had evaporated and Brougham, who had endorsed similar proposals by Williams, but now supported ministers, declined to vote. The experience confirmed Taylor in his mistrust of Canning and his administration, which ‘dissected both Whigs and Tories’.30 On 14 June 1827 he withdrew his proposals to end the system of appointing nominees to election committees, in deference to Williams Wynn.31

Writing to Grey, 23 Jan. 1828, Taylor described the duke of Wellington’s new administration as a ‘liberal government founded upon the exclusion of the Ultra Tories’ and a reputed expedient until George IV could be persuaded to make the home secretary Peel prime minister.32 He had shared in the unease over Codrington’s victory at Navarino and stated his opposition to the treaty behind the battle, 31 Jan. 1828.33 After much ‘whingeing to Eldon’ about the ministers ‘and vice versa’,34 he prefaced his motion of 12 Feb. for chancery reform with a statement directly criticizing the system, not past and present lord chancellors. Now projecting himself as an individual fighting vested interests, he protested at his deliberate exclusion from the 1825-7 chancery commission, spoke of the cost and delay to claimants and the absurdity of the lord chancellor’s position as head of both chancery and its appellate court, the House of Lords. George Bankes and Brougham, believing that the remedy lay in distributing business to ‘cheaper’ local courts, would have none of it, and the motion was rejected. Taking a less dogmatic approach, he moved for inquiry into ‘the actual state of chancery’, 24 Apr., but Peel deemed his proposal too abstract and killed it, 91-42. He continued to press ministers, request returns and table motions while legislation was awaited from the Lords, 10 May 1828, 5, 6, 10 Feb., 25 May 1829, when he asked Peel to hold over the chancery bill to allow time for discussion. He presented several petitions (18 Feb.-29 Apr.) and voted for repeal of the Test Acts, 26 Feb., and divided for Catholic relief, 12 May. 1828. He was shut out of the division on civil list pensions, 20 May, voted against the archbishop of Canterbury’s registrar bill, 16 June, and divided for ordnance reductions, 4 July. He supported Durham petitions for repeal of the stamp duty on receipts under £20, 25 Feb., and against the small debts bill, 23 June 1828. That day, making the department of woods and forests and their ‘unauthorized’ payments to the architect Nash for work on Buckingham House his particular targets, he proposed a critical resolution setting out the sums spent without parliamentary consent (£250,000, 10 Mar. 1826-30 June 1827), which was defeated by 181-102. He reiterated his complaints against Nash, 12 May 1829.

The prosecution at Marlborough Street on 9 Jan. 1829 of his former footman for disrupting one of Taylor’s dinners and keeping his livery created a stir and was widely reported.35 He divided for Catholic emancipation, 6, 30 Mar., having presented and endorsed favourable petitions, 20 Feb., and he commended the government’s decision to concede it and Peel’s candidature for Oxford University when hostile petitions were presented from South Shields, 4 Mar., and Durham, 10 Mar. He seconded Alderman Wood’s motion to have Lowther, whose office as commissioner of woods and forests was in abeyance pending the issue’s resolution, added to the committee on private bills, 17 Mar., and presented petitions for referral to it that day on the Clarence railway bill. He also defended the conduct of the crew of the Sunderland collier brig Rosanna, who had been denied compensation after being sunk by a navy vessel, 22 May 1829. He voted to transfer East Retford’s seats to Birmingham, 5 May 1829, 11 Feb., and paired 5 Mar. 1830.

As one of the ‘28 opposition Members’ who voted against Knatchbull’s amendment to include reference to distress in the address, 4 Feb., Taylor explained (12 Feb., 2 Mar. 1830) that the Whig party with whom he had long acted had ‘dwindled away’, and that he would remain a lifelong Whig, unconnected with ministers, but prepared to support them on retrenchment and to oppose currency reform.36 He voted for Lord Blandford’s reform scheme, 18 Feb., and paired for Lord John Russell’s, 28 May, having voted for inquiry into Newark’s allegations against the duke of Newcastle, 1 Mar., but not the enfranchisement of Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, 23 Feb. He welcomed proposals to prevent Members voting on bills in which they had a pecuniary interest, 26 Feb. He voted, 5 Apr., and paired, 17 May, for Jewish emancipation, likewise the abolition of capital punishment for forgery, 7 June, which he had urged when presenting Durham petitions, 12 Mar., 29 Apr., and again, 13 May. He voted against the proposed expenditure on Woolwich, 30 Apr., public buildings, 3 May, and South American missions, 7 June. He advocated inquiry into the Irish church, 4 Mar., and voted in the minorities on Irish first fruit revenues, 18 May, and for inquiry into the conduct of the church commissioners, 17 June. He monitored the progress of the chancery bill closely in the Lords and made it known that he would not permit it to fail ‘without generating some discussion’, 18 May, and that he was prepared to compromise to avoid further time-wasting inquiry, 10 June. Highlighting the notorious case of Lord Portsmouth’s lunacy, he proposed legislating to give the lord chancellor the right to refer similar cases to courts of record, 2 Mar., so prompting the disclosure on the 18th that such power already existed. On the administration of justice bill, he poured scorn on the arguments for preservation of the Welsh judicature, but expressed regret that its abolition facilitated the appointment of only one additional chancery judge, 17, 18 June 1830. He topped the poll in a three-cornered contest at Durham at the general election in August, when the Ultra Gresley, as Londonderry’s nominee, defeated the Whig Chaytor to become Hardinge’s replacement; but he had to spend £5,000-£7,000 and he was compromised by allegations of collusion, and severely criticized for failing to divide frequently with the revived Whig opposition.37 In September 1830 he accompanied his wife and Creevey to North Wales, whence he attributed Huskisson’s fatal railway accident to a partial paralysis caused by a prostate complaint.38

The Wellington ministry listed Taylor among their ‘foes’, and he divided against them on the civil list when they were brought down, 15 Nov. 1830. He presented and endorsed Durham petitions against debtors’ prisons, 3 Nov., and West Indian slavery, 5, 11, 17, 23 Nov., ordered chancery returns as hitherto, 10 Nov., and moved the adjournment by which Sugden’s inquiry motion, calculated to embarrass Brougham as the new Grey ministry’s lord chancellor, was postponed, 16 Dec. He rallied for administration when it came on on the 20th. Responding to opposition criticism that day, he maintained that he had voted in 1823 to try O’Grady solely with a view to enabling him to clear his name, and no longer thought there were grounds for prosecution. Creevey, to whom Taylor confided his disappointment that Grey had omitted to reward his loyalty with a peerage, membership of the privy council or a secure Commons seat, claimed the credit for securing his admission to the council in February 1831 and duly ridiculed the event.39 Promoting reform, Taylor sent a letter of support to the Durham meeting, 7 Jan., and presented and endorsed their petition, 3 Feb., when ‘as a reformer of many years standing’ he urged the House to back the forthcoming ministerial measure ‘with one voice’.40 He presented and endorsed further favourable petitions, but not the ballot, 8 Feb., 14 Mar., and voted for the second reading of the ministerial bill, 22 Mar., and against Gascoyne’s wrecking amendment, 19 Apr. 1831. He stood down at the ensuing dissolution after belatedly canvassing Durham, where the dissatisfaction of the disfranchised freemen was directed against him and the reformers, resenting his refusal to spend or support Chaytor’s son at the recent by-election, made him the scapegoat for their failure to return two Members.41 Vexed at being deprived of the pleasure of seeing Taylor returned for Durham, his wife blamed the Lambtons for deserting him and the party for forgetting his sacrifices for Grey.42

Taylor applied in vain to Grey for a coronation peerage and church patronage for his nephew by marriage, the Rev. ‘Jack’ Vane, with whose assistance he brokered an introduction to the venal borough of Sudbury, which returned him as a Liberal at the general election of 1832.43 He died without issue at his London house, 16 July 1834, recalled by Creevey as a ‘gentleman of small stature and modest sagacity, but greatly assisted to some distinction by his clever and ambitious wife’.44 By his will, dated 14 July 1831 and proved under £100,000, he bequeathed a life interest in his London property and Bank stocks to his wife, with reversion to Vane as his executor and residuary legatee. He provided generously for his servants, left his racing cups to his friends William Joseph Denison* and Sir Ronald Ferguson*, and gave £50,000 in Irish currency to Oxford University to endow the Taylor language scholarship in memory of his father.45

Ref Volumes: 1820-1832

Author: Margaret Escott


  • 1. IGI (Mdx.).
  • 2. Broughton, Recollections, ii. 177; Creevey Pprs. i. 211; ii. 65, 89-91, 105, 116; Broughton mss, Darlington to Brougham, 29 Mar. 1821; Grey mss, Darlington to Grey, 8 Sept. 1825.
  • 3. Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 24 Sept. 1825.
  • 4. Durham CRO, Londonderry mss D/Lo/C83/3(1), 13(1), 14, 16(1), 17; Crabb Robinson Diary, i. 312; Brougham mss, Taylor to J. Brougham, 5 Feb. and n.d.; NLI, Vesey Fitzgerald mss 7858, A.E. Grant to Vesey Fitzgerald, 9 Feb.; PRO NI, Londonderry (Castlereagh) mss D3030/Q2/2; The Times, 18 Feb.; Newcastle Courant, 19 Feb.; Durham Chron. 4, 25 Mar. 1820; A.J. Heesom, Durham City and Its MPs, 23-24.
  • 5. The Times, 7, 13 Mar. 1820.
  • 6. Session of Parl. 1825, p. 487.
  • 7. The Times, 18 July 1820, 18 Apr. 1821.
  • 8. Add. 52444, f. 172; Dorset RO, Bond mss D/BoH C15, Jekyll to Bond, 4 July; Newcastle Courant, 9, 16 Dec. 1820.
  • 9. Grey mss, Darlington to Grey, 8 Apr. 1825.
  • 10. The Times, 4, 5 Apr. 1821; Broughton, ii. 150.
  • 11. The Times, 20 June 1820; HLRO, Hist. Coll. 379, Grey Bennet diary, 90.
  • 12. The Times, 27 June 1822, 29 Apr. 1823.
  • 13. Ibid. 4 July 1821.
  • 14. Ibid. 13 Feb. 1821, 27 Apr., 29 June 1822.
  • 15. Ibid. 22 Mar. 1821.
  • 16. Ibid. 10-12 May 1821.
  • 17. Buckingham, Mems. Geo IV, i. 446.
  • 18. The Times, 3, 24 May 1823.
  • 19. Creevey's Life and Times, 186.
  • 20. Arnould, Denman, 131-2; The Times, 29 Apr. 1820, 20 Apr., 1, 8 May 1821; CJ, lxxvi. 329, 383.
  • 21. The Times, 29 Apr., 2, 6, 17 May 1820, 30 Apr. 1822.
  • 22. Ibid. 4 June 1825.
  • 23. Ibid. 24 Feb. 1821, 8 May 1822.
  • 24. Ibid. 2 July 1823.
  • 25. Ibid. 21 May 1822, 12 June 1823, 30 Mar., 18 May 1824.
  • 26. Ibid. 19 May 1824, 25 Feb., 10, 21 Mar., 19 Apr. 1826.
  • 27. Ibid. 30 May, 2, 6 June; Durham Chron. 17 June 1826.
  • 28. Creevey's Life and Times, 223.
  • 29. The Times, 10 Mar., 3 Apr. 1827.
  • 30. Ibid. 5, 6 Dec. 1826, 10 Mar.; Grey mss, Taylor to Grey [Feb.]; Creevey Pprs. ii. 116; NLS, Ellice mss, Grey to Ellice, 31 May 1827.
  • 31. The Times, 15 June 1827.
  • 32. Grey mss, Taylor to Grey, 23 Jan. 1828.
  • 33. Ibid. Taylor to Grey, 16 Nov. 1827.
  • 34. Creevey Pprs. (1912 edn.) 494.
  • 35. The Times, 10 Jan. 1829.
  • 36. A. Mitchell, Whigs in Opposition, 218.
  • 37. Derbys. RO, Gresley of Drakelow mss D77/38/5, Durham to Gresley, 2 July, W.E. Mousley to same, 29 July; Londonderry mss C86/13-15; Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 25 Aug.; Procs. at Durham City Election (1830), 17-23.
  • 38. Creevey Pprs. ii. 213; Add. 51594, Luttrell to Lady Holland, 23 Sept. 1830.
  • 39. Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 7 Jan. 1831; Creevey's Life and Times, 334, 337.
  • 40. Newcastle Chron. 15 Jan. 1831.
  • 41. Durham Co. Advertiser, 29 Apr., 6 May; Londonderry mss C86/17; Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 3 May; Wellington mss WP1/1184/3; Grey mss, Chayton to Grey, 16 May 1831.
  • 42. Creevey mss, Mrs. Taylor to Creevey [30 Apr. 1831].
  • 43. Grey mss, Taylor to Grey, 18 June, 22 Sept. and n.d., Grey to Sefton, 23 Sept.; Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 23 Sept. 1831; NLW, Ormathwaite mss FG 1/6, pp. 93, 157, 159, 161, 167-75, 187-9.
  • 44. Creevey Pprs. ii. 284.
  • 45. PROB 11/1848/352; IR26/1400/429.